RAM PRAVESH SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 22-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM PRA VESH SINGH AND ORS. 
ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Electricity Act, 1910-Section 3-Absorption of services-Liquidation 
C of a Society and absorption of its undertakings with Electricity Board-Non-
absorption of its employees-Challenged-Obligation of Board to absorb 
services of the employees-Heid: There was no obligation on the part of the 
Board to absorb the services of the employees either on contractual, statutory 
or equitable considerations-The natural consequence of transfer of an 
D undertaking, unless there is specific provision for continuation of the service 
of the employees, is termination of employment and employer's liability to pay 
compensation-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25-FF. 
Administrative law-Principle of legitimate Expectation-Nature and 
Scope of--Held: legitimate Expectation is not a legal right-It is an 
E expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a 
promise or established practice-The expectation should be legitimate, 
reasonable, logical and valid-It is a concept fashioned by courts for judicial 
review of administrative action-It is procedural in character-Even when 
it is made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief-Public 
interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or 
F bonafide reason given by the decision maker, may be sufficient to negate the 
legitimate Expectation-The doctrine based on established practice cannot 
be invoked by a total stranger unconnected with the authority. 
A co-operative society was liquidated and merged with Bihar Electricity 
G Board. Since the Board did not absorb the services of the employees of the 
Society, the appellantHmployees thereof filed Writ Petition before High Court 
seeking direction to the Board to absorb them. The Petition was dismissed by 
Single Judge of High Court. The judgment was upheld by Division Bench of 
High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal of the appellants. 
H 
512 
-
RAM PRA VESH SINGH v. ST A TE OF BIHAR 
513 
The question for consideration before this Court was whether there was A 
any obligation on the part of the Board-either contractual or statutory, or on 
equitable considerations-to absorb the services of the appellants ? 
Appellants interalia contended that they had legitimate expectation in 
view of the facts that previously, when the Board had taken over the 
undertakings of the erstwhile licensees, it also took over the services of their B 
employees; that in some cases, Supreme Court had directed absorption in 
similar circumstances. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The Board neither entered into any contract with the society, C 
nor gave any assurance to the Society or its employees to absorb the employees 
of the society into its service. Therefore, there is no contractual obligation 
on the part of the Board to absorb the services of the appellants. (522-B] 
2. None of the provisions of Electricity Act, 1910 required the purchaser 
of the undertaking to take over the services of the employees of the Society. D 
The appellants have not been able to show any other statutory provision which 
entitles them to seek absorption by the Board. Hence, there is no statutory 
obligation to absorb them into Board's service. (522-E( 
3.1. Legitimate expectation is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a 
benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or E 
established practice. The term 'established practice•· refers to a regular, 
consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-
making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, 
logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or 
random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a 
legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a F 
concept fashioned by courts, for judicial review of administrative action. It is 
procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of 
fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or 
practice established. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is 
rather weak as its slot is just above 'fairness in action' but far below 
'promissory estoppel'. It may only entitle an expectant: (a) to an opportunity G 
to show cause before the expectation is d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.